Moving this video to Aemaeth's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.

Heaven forbid we want to deport any illegal immigrants. Fuuuuuck. I really don't understand what's so controversial about it. You break the law, you go to jail. You're not a citizen and you're here illegally? You get deported. what's the question here?

*promote. There's plenty of honest people trying to become a citizen legally that we don't need to go ahead and grant citizenship to those that are already here illegally and leeching off the system.

That's like someone stealing a Tv, getting caught, and being told to keep it because they already have it- while there are others saving their money to purchase it the legal way. (Are you listening, Obama?)

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued - promote requested by MarineGunrock.

What you don't get,MG, is the agenda-Why do those, who control governments-at-large ignore the people? Because they do what they will, with a view to amassing power and control, part of which is putting ineffectual assholes in positions of influence-but they aren't ineffectual, are they??.....They appear to want a once great nation, whose culture and language is diluted, and whose borders are porous and they will use all the useful idiots (many here)to scream foul, with words like "racist", "left and right", "liberal", "neocon".....while nothing but talk gets accomplished for the good of mankind.....suits their one-world goals.....They could give a fiddlers fuck about any lasting repairs, they want to break it down, and fast....haven't you noticed the insanity lately?? Gonna get a lot whackier.....

Buncha wankers, follow the leaders, no, kill them all!!!

>> ^MarineGunrock:
You're not a citizen and you're here illegally? You get deported. what's the question here?

There's lots of questions. Conservative estimates put the number of illegal immigrants around 11-12 million, with some suggesting the number is as high as 20 million. How much money are you willing to spend to find, detain, and deport them? How many mistakes (deporting legal residents or citizens) are you willing to accept? What do you with with a child that was born here (i.e., a citizen) if you are deporting his/her parents? How do you plan to handle the economic impact of removing upwards of 10 million people from the labor force? How do you handle the foreign relations fallout that would come from such a move? And that's just scratching the surface.

>> ^choggie:
They appear to want a once great nation, whose culture and language is diluted, ....

Choggie - the only American culture that's been diluted was that of Native Americans, and obliterated is probably the better term. As for everyone else here - we all came from another culture! Or are you suggesting that the Western European culture from which many of us derive is the only "true" American culture? I don't think you are - I'm just trying to figure out what you meant by that.

To answer the question:

1) You don't necessarily need to actively search for the illegals. But if they are reported, you take care of the problem.
As for children that are born here: Why the hell are we granting citizenship to children of illegals (who are probably using the medical system for free) anyway?

Economic impact: You're assuming that we remove 10 million people from their jobs all at once. That sure as shit ain't gonna happen.

Foreign Relations: With who? Mexico? Seriously? What are they gonna do? Not let Americans into their border to spend our money in their country? I think not.

Besides, you're acting like we don't already deport illegals on a regular basis right now, anyway.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'healthcare, health insurance, florida, hospital, immigration' to 'healthcare, florida, hospital, immigration, Carol Plato, Martin Memorial' - edited by MarineGunrock

If they're working atleast twice as hard for US companies for less than half of what they should make, wouldn't you say they've earned the healthcare they supposedly leech? And by this I'm not referring to all illegal immigrants and definately not all US citizens, but as a generalization wouldn't you say that they've worked for that healthcare atleast as hard as US citizens?

No, I wouldn't.
Because illegal immigrants don't pay taxes. That's why everything they get from the government is leeching.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

The US economy is built on the backs of cheap Mexican labor. I pay 4 times as much for local fruit and vegetables in Australia because we don't have that population.

The right winger politicians pay lip service to their xenophobe constituents while slyly assuring their big agri-business buddies that the flow of cheap labor, vital to their business, will not really be staunched.

OK, there's a good whinge - how about a solution:

1. Recognise that Mexicans are not our enemies - they're our friends
2. Establish a legitimate guest worker program so people don't die getting to their jobs.
3. Tax them
4. Get them enrolled in Obama's health care program, just like everyone else.

^That would seem to be a pretty good solution. Though at the moment I don't know shit about Obama's health care system.
And I'm by no means a xenophobe. I just don't like it when my money pays someone else's benefits or salary -welfare for able bodied people and such. I realize that some people honestly can't make ends meet, hence subsidized housing and such, but anyone has to admit there are people that leech off the system.
Shit, just last Christmas Eve I saw a man buy a fucking shrimp platter with food stamps. Last time I checked, shrimp was a luxury food. One that even I can't afford willy-nilly. And I work damn hard for my food money. There's no fucking reason that someone that has government-provided money for food should be able to use it to buy luxury items that others that don't get free money can't afford.

damn, good discussion going here, but the post is a dupe: http://www.videosift.com/video/Testimony-of-Illegal-Alien-Care-from-1-Florida-Hospital

oh wait - no it's not. The other is the dupe. hmmm. *merge

Immigration always has two sides two the argument. One side is that they help by filling in the jobs we don't want. The other side is that they are illegal so should be deported. My stance is thus: they are illegal. This argument is like saying (if you'll allow me to take it to the extreme) it's OK to break the law and kill people as long as they are bad people.

If the argument can be made that illegal immigrants fill a vital function in society, then why is it illegal? If it helps us and helps then, legalize it. Otherwise, send them back.

As far as Dag's comments go, there are many legal, fair programs for getting visa's. Part of the problem is that the jobs that take them would have legal workers, and usually do. Why hire someone who won't speak the language? The companies that DO hire illegals are not trying to follow the law on tax law or anything else.

I didn't upvote this before, but now that there's a good discussion broiling, I'll upvote away.

Immigration is one of the few issues I don't have a passionate position on. My personal belief is that the United States always was a country of immigrants, and that as long as people are willing to pay their taxes, and participate in what passes for culture in this country, then the more the merrier.

I think the solution for the "immigration problem" is to crack down on the companies who hire "undocumented workers" and don't withold tax, or pay minimum wage. Then there's not much incentive to come here illegally, unless they want to sign up to be a citizen, with all of its benefits and responsibilities.

I always view this country as being the effect of a social contract between the citizens and the government (who're supposedly one and the same). So long as people are willing to sign the contract, I don't care where they were born; they're one of us.

Sure, we've gotta do background checks to make sure people aren't criminals fleeing justice, or some sort of terrorist, but beyond that, I just don't see the problem.

Actually, I thought you were suggesting we deport as many as possible as soon as possible. If you're fine with the status quo, what's the problem?

>> ^MarineGunrock:
As for children that are born here: Why the hell are we granting citizenship to children of illegals (who are probably using the medical system for free) anyway?

Because that's the definition of citizen.

Economic impact: You're assuming that we remove 10 million people from their jobs all at once.

No, not really. Regardless of how fast those workers are removed, they still need to be replaced. There's already been labor issues in Arizona, Colorado, etc., though the decline in housing construction has alleviated it somewhat.

Foreign Relations: With whom? Mexico? Seriously? What are they gonna do? Not let Americans into their border to spend our money in their country? I think not.

It's always a good idea to maintain good relations with your neighbors. These issues don't exist in a vacuum. It's not just Mexico, though, but every country. If the U.S. did begin a large campaign to find and deport illegal immigrants, the international respone would be horrendous, at a time when we can least afford it. But, I take it we're in agreement that such a program would be a Bad Idea.

And yes, many illegal immigrants do pay taxes, even if they don't file. Payroll taxes (social security) are automatically withheld for any wage workers. Sure, many are paid under the table, but I think that is not the norm. Besides, taxes or no, they are still contributing to society, and at the very least that should be recognized and be a mitigating circumstance when considering their status.


The problem is that our current immigration laws don't allow for nearly enough immigrant workers (everything from farm workers to computer engineers) as businesses need.

I'm suggesting that we deport everyone as soon as they are found.
I have no statistics, but I would very much doubt that any more than two percent of illegal workers pay taxes, and I think that's a high number. How does an employer send withholdings to the government for a person that doesn't technically exist?

And the definition of citizen (especially the one you linked me to) says nothing about who gets granted the status.

Yes, jobs will be need to be replaced, but as slow as a process it would be - it won't have an impact.

*promote. I have a lot of Liberal friends (from Dems to Anarchists), and the general consensus for their beef (especially with Anarchists!) with the "Securing of borders" tends to come from their detest of Capitalism. I always thought it had more to do with racism, because no one seemed to give two shits if Canadians were over here, only Mexicans. But, the more I speak with friends it seems they just want to fight the Capitalist "man".

My friends dislike the idea of private property. The stauncher of the Liberals think every person deserves the right to ALL property without it being divided. In other words, your property line is the same to them as the borders: they shouldn't exist. You're probably asking, "But, genius of geniuses blankfist, how does this have anything to do with Capitalism?" It has everything to do with the few and rich being able to purchase more land (more money = more land) than those with less money, therefore the Capitalist system affords them more entitlement and power. There's also the argument of Capitalists using debt to create a form of indentured servitude with workers. It all comes back to social and worker's rights versus the rights of the individual and entrepreneur. That's why you hear so many arguments being made that this country was "built on the backs of cheap Mexican labor." Labor being the operative word here, as if to denote that Capitalists are abusing them somehow. I don't mean to pick on you, Dag.

I know this is heavily generalized here, but to say "they're illegal and need to be sent back" pisses off people who do not think in terms of individual right to property. This is just my opinion on the matter, so I could be completely off base here.

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Tuesday, July 22nd, 2008 1:00pm PDT - promote requested by blankfist.

>> ^blankfist:
I know this is heavily generalized here, but to say "they're illegal and need to be sent back" pisses off people who do not think in terms of individual right to property. This is just my opinion on the matter, so I could be completely off base here.

You're completely off base here.

What pisses American liberals off is a) thinking we're not in favor of private property, b) saying "they're illegal and need to be sent back", because I don't see what problems their staying causes as long as they pay taxes, and obey the laws.

To me, the "problem" with immigration is that it provides companies with a way to break labor laws (primarily minimum wage laws). I'm not so worried about people coming here for that kind of work -- they're just looking for a day's work for a day's pay, and if they think they can do well by coming here for that...they don't sound like a danger to me.

There aren't too many illegal immigrants where I live, so it's all academic to me -- there may be something I don't get about the threats illegal immigrants pose, but it always winds up sounding like thinly veiled racism to me.

I mean, if you found out Charlize Theron was here illegally, would you really want to put her on a plane back to South Africa? If not, why not?

Call it what it is: an invasion.

The Mexican invaders of today are not the same as those of 30 years ago.

The illegals of yesteryear were mostly migrant workers who shuttled back and forth over the border depending on growing seasons. Assimilation wasn't a big deal because they weren't staying long. Also back then, government actually enforced the parts of the Constitution that addressed national borders.

The modern invader is here to stay, attracted by inexplicable "anchor baby" laws and a large welfare state.

The new invader has a chip on his shoulder, as "certain elements" in our society constantly push "multiculturalism": anti-White, anti-American programming that encourages hatred of assimilation and Western values while celebrating victimhood. Mexican land was 'stolen', you see. California is really Aztlan, etc.

Learning English for the illegal has been made equivalent to shaming Blacks who speak correct English and try to make something of themselves as "acting White."

Companies hiring illegals should be burned to the ground. I'm 100% with choggie. Both sides of the aisle benefit from pandering and the price of their treason will likely be war. All it will take is a single border state telling the feds to go frack themselves, building a real wall, shooting to kill and deportation.

Since we're all throwing in, here's my ante.

I'm all for immigration. LEGAL immigration. We already have a system in place that allows for anyone to come join our country, if they so choose to. But to enter illegally, and then expect amnesty? Uh uh. How you can you possibly cry amnesty from a country whose rules you can't abide by in the first place?

So come on in, you're more than welcome. Just respect what you so desperately want.

I agree with you, NetRunner, to an extent. I do not agree with nationalism and racism, and I think most fears of illegal immigration are purely racist or fear-based. See? I agree with you.

Still, it's not just that illegal immigration poses a threat to us, but that I disagree with forced financial dissemination, which is exactly what is happening when you forcefully take money from people (taxes) and force them to pay into systems and departments they themselves don't want to pay into. Where's the freedom in that? Forcing all of us to share the bill for everything (not just illegal immigrants getting a health care) is just wrong. It's stealing. And, because it's by force, it's violently stealing.

There's nothing wrong with "user fees", for which you pay for things you use. For instance, you currently pay a user fee when you buy gasoline. That tax is supposed to be used to fund highways and roads. But, what does our government do? They stopped using the gasoline user fee for its intended purpose. Why? Because they CAN. Because for highways they can also dip into other funds, such as income tax. That's not fair.

User fees, however, are fair. Why? Because you pay for what you use. Why is it fair for people who don't have kids to pay for other people's education? Why is it fair for people who choose not to get married (or are unable to get married) be penalized with higher taxes? Why is it fair you have to pay for this war in Iraq, NetRunner? Are you enjoying the nation-building your money is paying for over there? Probably not, right?

@blankfist:
Would it be fair then to characterize your position as not having a specific desire to tighten enforcement of immigration law, but instead a general desire to abolish all government programs?

@QM:
We're doing a pretty good job of assimilating the world, in countries much farther away than Mexico. Do you really believe that Mexicans who're here now, refusing to assimilate, won't end up assimilating in the long run? On the really long scale, don't you think their kids will assimilate?

We've assimilated several different minority communities that were initially resistant, I don't see what makes Mexicans more threatening. We are the precursor to the Borg after all.

@videosiftbannedme:
That system is painfully difficult, even for well-educated Europeans who follow the process to the letter. My wife is from Finland, and it took years to get all the paperwork done, and that was before 9/11...these days it's nearly impossible to legally immigrate to the U.S.

Also, there's no method available at all to unskilled Mexicans who want to come here to work. The only avenue for them to come here at all is through winning a spot in the "ethnic diversity lottery", which hands out something like 1200 visas for entering the country, out of hundreds of thousands of applications.

Illegal entry is the only way for them to get here, and given our lack of enforcement on companies who hire them, there's still plenty of incentive for them to come.

>> ^NetRunner:
@blankfist:
Would it be fair then to characterize your position as not having a specific desire to tighten enforcement of immigration law, but instead a general desire to abolish all government programs?


No. I never said we need to abolish all government programs. The federal government has a role, albeit a small one protecting life, liberty and pursuit of happiness and no law shall be passed that obstructs the governing law of the Constitution. What kills me is why you are so against the ideas of the Constitution. Why do you fight it so much? oh, please, please, please say it's a living document so I can rip you a new one!

Securing the borders is an important role. But, let's not get this twisted and say this is about racism, because it's not. I also think allowing people to migrate here (LEGALLY!!!!) is as important to the foundation of this country as anything else. This is a country of immigrants, and we need to keep that tradition alive, I think!

I'm not letting you off the hook so easily, however, Mr. NetRunner. You must answer my question about taxes, which was: "Why is it fair for people who choose not to get married (or are unable to get married) be penalized with higher taxes? Why is it fair you have to pay for this war in Iraq, NetRunner? Are you enjoying the nation-building your money is paying for over there? Probably not, right?"

No. For me it's not a racism issue. I don't give a shit if you're French, Arabic or Canadian. Come here. It's how America was built. I know my ancestors sure as hell didn't use wampum or live in a wigwam.

But it is a problem, and it needs to be fixed. Mass deportation would be ineffective and expensive. Publicizing a worker's program and allowing the illegals to register as documented workers, thereby receiving minimum wage and paying taxes, would pretty much solve the problem.

"But MG, why would the companies pay them minimum wage when there's other illegals willing to work for less?"

Because those other illegals would also want the minimum wage.

>> ^NetRunner:
@videosiftbannedme:
That system is painfully difficult, even for well-educated Europeans who follow the process to the letter. My wife is from Finland, and it took years to get all the paperwork done, and that was before 9/11...these days it's nearly impossible to legally immigrate to the U.S.
Also, there's no method available at all to unskilled Mexicans who want to come here to work. The only avenue for them to come here at all is through winning a spot in the "ethnic diversity lottery", which hands out something like 1200 visas for entering the country, out of hundreds of thousands of applications.
Illegal entry is the only way for them to get here, and given our lack of enforcement on companies who hire them, there's still plenty of incentive for them to come.


It's unfortunate that the system is difficult. That's life. Since when is *anything* that you really want, easy? And there is a method for unskilled workers to come here. You acknowledged it yourself by stating it was in place, but difficult. But, just because it's difficult, does not exclude it, especially if it is the law and required. Why should immigrants be allowed to "cheat"? Because it's hard? Because they're unskilled? Fine, then I could use Appeals to Pity and other logical fallacies and start complaining that I'm not a CEO and make $300,000/yr.

Nope. There is absolutely no reason why they can't follow the rules.

>> ^videosiftbannedme:
It's unfortunate that the system is difficult. That's life. Since when is anything that you really want, easy? And there is a method for unskilled workers to come here. You acknowledged it yourself by stating it was in place, but difficult. But, just because it's difficult, does not exclude it, especially if it is the law and required. Why should immigrants be allowed to "cheat"? Because it's hard? Because they're unskilled? Fine, then I could use Appeals to Pity and other logical fallacies and start complaining that I'm not a CEO and make $300,000/yr.
Nope. There is absolutely no reason why they can't follow the rules.


Ahh, but they're not following the rules. Given that, what do we do? Spend lots of money enforcing them, or reexamine the validity of the rule?

In this situation, I propose the latter. What would be the harm in making it easier? If we get them paying taxes, and earning minimum wage, doesn't that solve the problem without much cost, and with possible benefits to us?

When talking about politics, the point is to examine policies -- saying "the rules are the rules" is what police forces and military officers should say, but politicians should be examining the issue, and deciding if the rules should change, or just the budget for enforcement.

>> ^blankfist:
No. I never said we need to abolish all government programs. The federal government has a role, albeit a small one protecting life, liberty and pursuit of happiness and no law shall be passed that obstructs the governing law of the Constitution. What kills me is why you are so against the ideas of the Constitution. Why do you fight it so much? oh, please, please, please say it's a living document so I can rip you a new one!
Securing the borders is an important role. But, let's not get this twisted and say this is about racism, because it's not. I also think allowing people to migrate here (LEGALLY!!!!) is as important to the foundation of this country as anything else. This is a country of immigrants, and we need to keep that tradition alive, I think!
I'm not letting you off the hook so easily, however, Mr. NetRunner. You must answer my question about taxes, which was: "Why is it fair for people who choose not to get married (or are unable to get married) be penalized with higher taxes? Why is it fair you have to pay for this war in Iraq, NetRunner? Are you enjoying the nation-building your money is paying for over there? Probably not, right?"


I was mostly trying to seek the common ground, not get sidetracked onto other issues we usually butt heads over.

The Constitution supports my viewpoint. It also supports my viewpoint that it's a living document. If it was meant to be carved in stone for all eternity, there wouldn't be a process for changing it, and the Supreme Court wouldn't have the power to interpret it. I don't think we should change it too often, and that we should stay true to the philosophies and concepts it expresses, but it was meant to evolve and adapt to the times.

As for your comments on taxes, I don't think those things are fair. I haven't paid much attention to the "marriage penalty" comments since I'm married, but that was supposedly eliminated by part of Bush's tax cuts, and Obama is in favor of maintaining that aspect of it. For what it's worth, I'm in favor of keeping it eliminated too.

It's not fair that I have to pay for this war in Iraq, but it's also not fair that Bush became president through election fraud, in both terms. I don't think the solution to the problem with the war is to abolish taxation, the same way I don't think the solution to election fraud is to stop voting. Instead I'd like to adjust the way they both work, so we don't run into these kinds of pitfalls.

None of the above has anything to do with immigration, unless you're suggesting that without taxation, without publicly funded programs, and without labor laws, immigration wouldn't be viewed as a problem anymore.

That's why I asked if it was fair to characterize your position that way; I thought that was what you were suggesting.

>> ^MarineGunrock:
No. For me it's not a racism issue. I don't give a shit if you're French, Arabic or Canadian. Come here. It's how America was built. I know my ancestors sure as hell didn't use wampum or live in a wigwam.
But it is a problem, and it needs to be fixed. Mass deportation would be ineffective and expensive. Publicizing a worker's program and allowing the illegals to register as documented workers, thereby receiving minimum wage and paying taxes, would pretty much solve the problem.
"But MG, why would the companies pay them minimum wage when there's other illegals willing to work for less?"
Because those other illegals would also want the minimum wage.


I love the idea, but I don't think it would work. I've lived among illegal immigrants (don't ask me why) for an extended period of time, and because of obvious language barriers, it's very ruled by rumor. It only takes one person to suggest that registration and minimum wage will make you undesirable and pretty soon, the entire community is terrified. Most of them are paranoid by the idea of deportation anyway.

@NetRunner: Well said and good joust, sir.

All thing aside, we can agree to disagree. I am more of a stickler when it comes to the rules. If I can abide by them, there is no reason why someone else can't. Just my type of personality. If you kowtow to one group, then others will expect the easy treatment to. Hell, why even have rules at all if we are going to bend them to the will of the lowest common denominator? Anyway, I've said my piece. On to better pastures.

This post has been removed from the Travel channel by channel owner silvercord. Please review the FAQ to learn about appropriate channel assignments.

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by cricket.

Awarding eric3579 with one Power Point for fixing this video's dead embed code.